My Strategies to Deter Cheating on Online Exams

student_laptopI’m often asked by colleagues just stepping into distance education what to do about cheating on online exams. I chuckle and admit that I don’t worry too much  about it anymore. Why?  I accepted the fact that if someone wants to cheat, they’ll find a way to do it. This became clear in my second year of teaching when I found a #2 lead pencil with notes carefully etched into each of the facets of the barrel without cracking the yellow paint covering it. People can and will be sneaky.  Here are a few things I do to inhibit cheating on my online exams delivered through DesireToLearn (D2L):

  • Address the Issue in the syllabus. I address the issue of cheating, especially plagiarism, upfront in the the syllabus. I inform the students of the potential consequences and point them to university policies they should read.
  • Open exams. I’ve made the exams open book and notes hence  cheating by  using forbidden resources is no longer relevant.  Students can use any resource they want to solve the problem-oriented questions that populate my exams. I’m a firm believer in helping student be “knowledge-able” not just “knowledgeable”. Michael Wesch describes being knowledge-able as being “”able to find, sort, analyze, ultimately criticize, and even create new information and knowledge.”  (Michael Wesch: Moving From Knowledgeable to Knowledge-able. (n.d.). nancyrubin. Retrieved September 1, 2013, from http://nancy-rubin.com/2012/01/24/michael-wesch-moving-from-knowledgeable-to-knowledge-able/
  • Problem-oriented questions.  I use problem-oriented questions addressing Bloom’s level 3, 4 & 5 in addition to those that rely on recall of basic information largely at Bloom’s level 1 & 2.  The problem-oriented questions require an understanding of spatial processes and relationships, the answers for which are not easily found online or in a printed textbook. Students are given a scenario with four to five possible outcomes. Quantitative, map reading, and graph interpretation skills are needed to answer these kinds of questions.
  • Timed Exams. Exams are accessible on a single day unless special circumstances require a student to reschedule their exam date. My introductory physical geography course has a 75 questions objective test for each of the four units of the course. Approximately fifty questions relate to the conceptual content and twenty-five  questions to the lab component. These are the same exams given to my face-to-face sections of the course. When teaching face-to-face, an entire 110 minute lab period was devoted to the exam. Thus I set the time limit for the online exam to 110 minutes.
  •  Randomization. Randomization is easy with an online exam. I have my quiz questions grouped by topic. Each set of questions in the group are randomized as are the answers to each question. It’s very rare two students get the exact same test. It does not prevent them from copying the exam and questions, but this is true of regular printed tests if you allow access to them. Performance statistics for each group of questions identifies where I need to tweak questions or course content and delivery to achieve better learning and assessment.
  •  Submission view. Desire2Learn has a variety of options for viewing exam submission view options that can be used to prevent cheating during the exam period. I allow students to view their score upon submission but not the answer key. Answer keys become available a few minutes after the exam closing time. Students can access their answers and seek help with those that were incorrectly answered at this time.

Cutting down on group cheating is more difficult. Students have the ability to meet as a group with one person taking the test while the others help and take notes. Using web cams for exam proctoring virtually eliminates this problem. In any case, trying to find a reasonable approach to controlling cheating is a challenge, made even more so by the connected culture we live in.

Ken Foote: Pioneering Open Education in Geography

Prof. Ken Foote, Geography k.foote@colorado.edu (Photo/Larry Harwood)I met Ken Foote many years ago at an NCGE conference and instantly found a kindred spirit in the use of the web for geography education. Ken is a pioneer in open education in geography dating back to his Geographer’s Craft project. The most engaging and rewarding professional development experience of my career was participating in his summer Virtual Geography Department Project workshops. The Virtual Geography Department Project (1996-2006) was a groundbreaking project aimed at helping “geographers create innovative learning and teaching resources in the web. It also served as a clearinghouse for instructional materials geographers wished to share with colleagues.”  The workshops ran for three consecutive summers, I attended two of the three as a participant, facilitator, and became the coordinator of the virtual fieldtrips working group. Its impact on the discipline has been significant as those who participated benefited greatly and spread its philosophy across the web. Karen Lemke’s “Illustrated Glossary of Alpine Glacial Landforms“, Mark Francek’s  “Earth Science Resources for Earth Sciences and Geography Instruction“, and Susan Woodward’s “Introduction to Biomes” are just a few examples. Ken has been active in mentoring early stage faculty through workshops and publications. He is the past president of the Association of American Geographers, National Council of Geographic Education, and the recipient of numerous awards.

Given the advances in web technologies and the maturing of social media, I asked Ken to reflect on the Virtual Geography Department Project and whether its time to revisit it. Ken graciously took time from his extremely busy schedule to answer a few questions for the Digital Professor.

DP: What inspired you to undertake the Virtual Geography Department Project (VGDP)?

KF: Almost as soon as the web became available, I saw that it was a great way to share teaching ideas and course materials.  People spend a lot of time developing materials for their classes when their colleagues may have already created similar resources.  Why reinvent the wheel?  But I was also hoping to get people to realize that the web could be used to create new types of course materials that could aid student learning.

DP: What impact do you think VGDP had on the discipline of geography?

KF: I think the biggest impact was helping geographers get started in the web.  The workshops supported perhaps 100-120 of the early adopters and many of these geographers remain leaders in online education today.  Participants in the VGDP also created some remarkable examples of web-based learning materials that, I think, helped encourage others to join in the effort.

DP: The Virtual Geography Department project was one of the first, organized forays into online geography education. What’s your impression of the state of online geography education today?

KF: I was a bit concerned in the early 2000s when the web became primarily a way to manage courses.  Faculty seemed less interested in developing innovative learning materials and more interested in using course management tools that allowed them to post lecture notes and grades. More recently, I think the tide has turned again and people are again coming up with some fantastic ideas for using the web and social media for promoting effective learning and teaching.  I think some of the exciting ideas are blended.  They use a variety of online and in-person media and experiences to cultivate student learning.

DP: Do you think there is still a need for projects like the Virtual Geography Department?

KF: Yes, maybe the time has come to focus again on developing a clearinghouse or method for sharing materials.  I still come back to the question: Why re-invent the wheel when so many people have developed excellent ideas for their classes?  I look at sites like the khanacademy.org and see tremendous possibilities for geographers to share their teaching ideas in the web.   Open educational resources (OER) are finally taking off.  The fact that Esri is releasing its learning materials as OER may be a big boost to these efforts.

DP: With the advent of social media, how could the Virtual Geography department project be re-imagined?

KF: I think the clearinghouse concept is still valid, but social media opens other possibilities that weren’t available ten or fifteen years ago.  With Web 2.0 I think it is possible to think of developing an online teaching and learning community.  This means more than just posting materials in the web.  It means developing opportunities for faculty and students to learn and teach together.

Models of Online Learning: What’s Old, What’s New: 2013 AAG Conference Panel Discussion

I’ll be participating in a panel discussion at the 2013 Association of American Geographers (AAG) conference entitled “Models of Online Learning: What’s Old, What’s New?” (http://meridian.aag.org/callforpapers/program/SessionDetail.cfm?SessionID=16667&cal=true) I teach physical geography in a “traditional” university environment. I’ve participated in the evolution of distance education from snail mail correspondence courses to current practices in online education. I no longer teach conventional lecture courses, my courses are delivered in hybrid or totally online  formats. Doing so takes me out of the mainstream of professors at my institution.  Though online education is making great strides in higher education, significant barriers to entry still exist, especially in the sciences and those who teach lab-based courses.   Research in online geography education indicates that doubts remain about its effectiveness and impact on the discipline (Ritter, 2012). I’m interested in how barriers to the adoption of distance education can be overcome by the creative application of technology (Ritter, 2011).

What caught my eye, and prompted me to join the panel, was a line from the abstract for our session:

 “Online learning is also a disruptive application of technology that threatens existing institutions and practices, and could ultimately prove detrimental to American higher education as a whole.”

 I do not see online learning as “detrimental” to higher education, quite the contrary. Online learning, is a natural step in the evolution of education. Is it an agent of disruption? Possibly, but to be detrimental means to do harm. Does online learning “harm” higher education? It is not harmful if students do equally well in an online course as they do in a face-to-face one, and current research shows they do (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, 2010). Some see it as harmful because online learning, in their opinion, removes the human element from education. Not only does it put distance between the student and teacher, it denies them the social experience of a residential education (Neem, 2011).

For online learning to succeed, it must address in the best and most positive way the concerns of those who question its practice.  Over a decade ago, past president of the AAG Patricia Gober warned geography educators about distance education in geography.  She cautioned us that ‘conducting online courses, even portions of a course, threatens ‘the essence of what it means to be a geographer’, particularly the ‘connection with real, live places’ (Gober, 1998).

Even though a relatively long list institutions are offering online courses as evidenced by  data published by AAG, a survey of department chairs  I conducted in 2011 showed a reticence toward moving physical geography instruction online. After lack of faculty interest and resources, pedagogical and logistical issues were important factors for not offering online physical geography courses online (Ritter, 2012). The loss of human contact, collaboration, and hands-on learning in the classroom, lab, and field that troubled department chairs the most.

William Bowmen in his 2013 book, “Higher education in the Digital Age”, expresses caution about moving into the online space. He recognizes it is necessary to explore distance education while retaining the enrichment a residential university brings to learning. He states that “learning occurs more or less continually, and more often than not, out of the classroom as in it” (Bowen, 2013, page 68 ). For geographers, out of the classroom often means in the field. Online educators need to develop means of bringing field exploration online. Sawyer, et. al. (2010) and Kolivras, et. al. (2011) have shown how remote web cams can effectively bring the field on to the screens of students. The merger of technology and reality with augmented reality smartphone apps is a unique way address concerns of removing the field from online geography education (Ritter, 2011). Expert help could be a tap away in identifying the landform, plant, or animal in your augmented reality enabled glasses.

For me, online education can be disrupting, but in a good way. Research has shown that instructors are forced to re-examine their practice when teaching online. Such reexamination and retooling carries over to their face-to-face courses. I see online education as a means to increase the reach of geography education and enhance the geographic literacy of a broader populace. For me, online geography education can only benefit geography as a discipline, not harm it.

Stop by our session if you are attending the conference http://meridian.aag.org/callforpapers/program/SessionDetail.cfm?SessionID=16667&cal=true). I’m looking forward to a lively discussion of the issues that continue to surround teaching geography online.

References

Bowen, W.G. (2013) Higher Education in the Digital Age. Princeton: Princeton Univ.

Gober, P. (1998). Distance learning and geography’s soul. Association of American Geographers Newsletter, 33(5), pp. 1 – 2

Kolivras, K. N., Luebbering, C. R., & Resler, L.M. (2011). Evaluating Differences in Landscape Interpretation between Webcam and Field-based Experiences. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, iFirst article 1-15.

Neem, J. (2011) Online Higher Education’s Individualist Fallacy. Inside Higher Education. Oct. 6, 2011. http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/10/06/neem_essay_on_limits_of_online_education_in_replicating_classroom_culture Retrieved April 2, 2013

Ritter, M.E. (2012). Barriers to Teaching Introductory Physical Geography Online. Review of International Geographical Education Online. 2 (1), pp. 62 – 78.  [http://www.rigeo.org/vol2no1/2.4.RIGEO-VOL.2.NO.1-4.pdf] Retrieved April 4, 1013.

Ritter, M.E. (2011). Teaching Physical Geography Online: Old Challenges, New Possibilities. Association of American Geographers Annual Conference, April 12, 2011.

Sawyer, C.F, Butler, D. R, & Curtis, M. (2010). Using Webcams to Show Change and Movement in the Physical Environment. Journal of Geography, 109(6), 251 – 263

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in Online learning: A meta-analysis and review of Online learning studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Blended Learning in an Introductory Physical Geography Course

The following was presented at the 2012 annual conference of the National Council for Geographic Education.

NCGE 2012 final.001

Today I’d like to discuss the development of a blended or hybrid introductory physical geography course. I also want to share a preliminary, comparative analysis of student achievement in the hybrid and totally online versions of the course.

NCGE 2012 final.002

Those of us who teach laboratory courses know that they play an important role in science education. In the laboratory students apply the conceptual content of a course. It is also an opportunity for students to socially engage in a less formal, applied, collaborative way to promote learning.

NCGE 2012.003a.003

Compared to other types of courses, lab science course have been slower to move online. Jeschofnig & Jeschofnig (2011) found several reasons for why lab science courses are not offered online:

  • Uncertainty about how to offer a valid lab component with online courses
  • Difficulty moving outside the box of the campus laboratory experience
  • Doubts that students can independently perform lab work in nontraditional places
  • Doubts that off-campus lab work can be as effective as formal laboratory work
  • Fear about safety and liability issues if students experiment without supervision

NCGE 2012 final.003

Like other disciplines, e-learning in geography is gaining broader acceptance in higher education but not without concern over losing the soul of the discipline , especially its deep connection with places as AAG past president Gober (1998) warned us over a decade ago.   A survey of geography departments that I recently conducted echoed the concerns presented by Jeschofnig & Jeschofnig. After faculty resources and interest, pedagogical and logistical issues were reasons for not offering totally online introductory physical geography courses (Ritter, 2012). Several survey respondents raised concerns over losing the face-to-face contact and social learning that takes place especially in the lab or field..

Others recognize the need to implement e-learning in geography education to address the special needs of nontraditional learners, employers and the ability to employ rich multimedia and active learning strategies (Lynch et. al, 2008, Glasmeier, 2012).  One approach to address these issues is to blend online and face-to-face instruction.

NCGE 2012 final.004

Blended courses address the desire for face-to-face instruction while retaining many of the advantages of online learning.  A blended or hybrid course delivers part of the content in a face-to-face setting and a portion online.  The relative proportions of time devoted to online or in-person activities varies widely across blended courses and instructors. Blended learning lets the instructor reallocate class time for other purposes. Bended course enables the transition from teaching centered learning to student centered learning, or learner centered teaching. Students can be assigned pre-recorded lectures rather than passively sitting through a lecture,  and then meet face-to-face to discuss and actively engage in the course content.

Those teaching blended courses make the assumption that students derive benefits from face-to-face interaction with their peers and instructors while taking more control over their learning in an online environment (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003). Blended courses also cater to a range of learning styles (Mitchell and Forer, 2010). The 2012 ECAR survey of students showed that seventy percent said they learn more from blended courses Dahlstrom (2012).

NCGE 2012 final.005

At UW-Stevens Point we offer a traditional introductory physical geography course. Students meet three days a week for lecture and twice a week for a 110 minute lab.

In my conventional face-to-face sections I’ve offered an online component, the biosphere unit, since 1997. Surveys of students showed a desire for a totally online version, but most preferred  a conventional approach.

I’ve offered a fully online version of the course since 2003 during the summer and as a part of my regular academic year course load since 2008.

In order to provide more flexibility to students, especially non-traditional students who wanted some face to face seat time, a blended (hybrid) version was created. Three 50 minute periods are allocated in their schedule but we do not meet face to face for the lecture. Lecture content is delivered through a custom online textbook, videos and podcasts. The students do meet for a conventional, 110 minute lab twice a week. A short introduction to the lab is given and then students work in groups of 4 students. Each student is responsible for submitting their own lab assignment.

NCGE 2012 final.006

Conceptual content delivered in a typical lecture has been moved to an interactive, multimedia physical geography textbook I’ve authored. Podcasts and videos are assigned to bring additional context to the textbook material and appeal to visual and auditory learners.

NCGE 2012 final.007

Lab content is delivered in-class in the blended section of the course. The first twenty to thirty minutes are used to relate the exercise of the day to the course content students have been studying online.Students break into groups of two to four students to complete an activity in a conventional printed lab manual.

Introductory remarks for the online section are communicated through podcasts and text material. It is assumed that the online students are working independently of one another.

NCGE 2012 final.008

Concept review assignments are 10 to 15 short answer questions that relate to the content of a course topic. These are graded as complete or incomplete. They are class participation credit so to speak.

Lab exercises from a printed commercial manual written by instructors at UWSP are also assigned. These too are graded as complete or incomplete.

Online assignments – students gather data from the web or use digital technologies like Google Earth to explore physical geography

Capstone assignment – Physical Regions of Wisconsin – students gather data for their home region and compare to another of there choosing. Explain similarities or differences based on their knowledge of physical geography.

Unit Exams – 75 questions, 50 conceptual, 25 lab. Timed, grouped by content with both the questions and answers randomized.

NCGE 2012 final.009

After running the hybrid course for two years I was curious to know if there were any differences in the achievement levels of those enrolled in these two types of courses. Based on the literature I expected that students in the hybrid might be achieving at at higher level. I’m also curious to see if there are particular concepts or lab activities that students in the online version might have more difficulty with and require additional help that the hybrid students have access to.

NCGE 2012 final.010

Based on the current literature, I expected the hybrid course to better than the totally online version of the course. My null hypothesis is that there will be no difference, and alternative hypothesis that the hybrid section will achieve higher scores.

NCGE 2012 final.011

The data for this analysis was gathered during the 2011-2012 academic year from 111 students in 3 sections of the hybrid course and 94 students of 3 sections from the totally online course. Course, unit exam, and unit exam lab scores were used in this analysis.  For each version of the course I examined the achievement on four unit exams and the performance on the lab portion in for both online and hybrid versions of the c course were compared in this analysis. The course grade data includes performance on assignments and exams. Because of the way assignments are graded, exam scores are likely to tell us more about student achievement. The combined course data indicates there is no statistical difference between online and hybrid. The implication is that students can succeed in the course in a totally online learning environment.

NCGE 2012 final.012

A comparison of means for the course grades during the 2011 – 2012 academic year using a Student’s T-test showed no difference at the  .01 level of significance. Thus, overall student performance in the course does not favor one learning environment over the other. Running the T-Test at the .05 level yielded the same result of no difference in means.

NCGE 2012 final.013

The overall course grades include to the scores attributed to the concept reviews for which students simply need to turn in reasonable responses to questions even though not quite correct. To get a better idea of student learning, performance on unit exams was compared. Again, a comparison of means test showed not significant difference between online and blended learning.

NCGE 2012 final.014

NCGE 2012 final.015

To tease out the effect of hybrid versus online learning in a lab setting, the performance on the lab portion of exams was compared. This filters out the influence of conceptual content from the applied content delivered via the lab assignment.  In all cases, there was no significant difference in the mean scores of the hybrid and totally online versions of the course. Even so, the hybrid version was six percentage points higher on the first exam, with the difference between versions of the course substantially narrowing for the remainder.

NCGE 2012 final.016

NCGE 2012 final.017

This study focused on student performance in a lab section of a hybrid and online course.  The results of this analysis imply that students can achieve equally well in a hybrid or online version of the course  in this study. It calls into question whether the collaborative learning of the face-to-face lab session has any effect on student performance if similar instructional support is given to those in an asynchronous online laboratory version of the course. Online students access to some instructional materials is more flexible than those in the hybrid section, especially for the lab portion of the course. Online students have the advantage of replaying the instructional videos that explain lab procedures. Students in the hybrid section have only the one time explanation during class.  What impact this has on difficult topics can be teased out through a more detailed analysis of exam results and a survey of student use.

Studies show those who do best in totally online courses tend to be self-motivated and independent learners (Abrahamson, 1998).It has been assumed that those students in the online section of the course worked independently.  Schutte (1996) found online students scored higher on tests than their face to face counterparts. He attributed the performance differences to enhanced opportunity for online collaboration.  A survey of students in the online course investigated here would check the validity of this assumption and provide additional insight into this and what characteristics influence student achievement in online and hybrid courses.

References:

Abrahamson, C. E. (1998). Issues in interactive communication in distance education. College Student Journal, 32(1), 33 – 43.

Dahlstrom, Eden, with a foreword by Charles Dziuban and J.D. Walker. (2012) ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2012 (Research Report). Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.

Gokhale, A 1995 Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking Journal of Technology Education. Volume 7, Number 1http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html

Gober, P. (1998). Distance learning and geography’s soul. AAG Newsletter, 33 (5), 1-2.

Hofstein, A. and V. N. Lunetta (1982) The Role of the Laboratory in Science Teaching: Neglected Aspects of Research. Review of Educational Research Summer, 1982, Vol. 52 (2), 201-217

Hofstein, A. and V. N. Lunetta (2003) The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century. Science Education. Volume 88 (1), 28-54

Illinois Online Network (ION). Weakness of online learning. http://www.ion.illinois.edu/resources/tutorials/overview/weaknesses.asp. Visited 6/10/2011

Jeschofnig, Linda; Jeschofnig, Peter (2011). Teaching Lab Science Courses Online: Resources for Best Practices, Tools, and Technology (Jossey-Bass Guides to Online Teaching and Learning) (Kindle Locations 330-333). John Wiley and Sons. Kindle Edition.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., Jone, K. Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, Washington, D.C., 2010. http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

Mitchell, P. & Forer, P. (2010) Blended learning: The perceptions of first-year geography students. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(1), pp. 77–89.

Osguthorpe, Phillipa and Pip Graham (2003) Blended Learning: Perceptions of First-year Geography Students. Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 34 (1) pp. 77-89

Osguthorpe, Russell T. and Charles R. Graham (2003) Blended Learning Environments: Definitions and Directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education. Volume 4(3) pp. 227-233

Ritter, M. (2012) Barriers to teaching introductory physical geography online. Review of International Geography Education Online. 2(1) pp. 61-77.

Schutte, J. G. (1996). Virtual teaching in higher education: The new intellectual superhighway or just another traffic jam? [Online]. Retrieved June 11, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.csun.edu/sociology/virexp.htm.

Vavala, Robert V.,  Deana Namuth-Covert, Courtney Haines, Donald J. Lee, James W. King, and Carol Speth (2010) Community in Three Undergraduate University Science Courses: An Analysis of Student Perception.  Journal of Natural Resources & Life Sciences Education • Volume 39, 157 -164

Infographic: Major Ed-Tech Trends for 2013

Please include attribution to OnlineColleges.net with this graphic.

Major Ed-Tech Trends for 2013

Success in a MOOC

A great video by one of the pioneers in MOOCs. Find out Dave Cormier’s five steps to succeed in a MOOC

The importance of a creative education

Noted photographer Chase Jarvis is disrupting education with CreativeLive. Watch his presentation at the 2012 PSFK conference in San Francisco.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: